The County Sheriffs of Colorado believe this is not "the appropriate time to introduce gun control legislation because decisions likely will be made on emotion rather than reason and that is not in the best interest of Colorado. It is the sheriffs' opinion that all gun control bills be tabled for at least a year to encourage rational deliberations before any decisions are made."

But, wait: Have the sheriffs deferred their own opinions on gun control during this supposedly emotional period? Why, no. In the same position paper in which they urge "our elected state leaders not to make decisions during this grieving period," they reveal their own judgment regarding a number of proposals.

For example, they're opposed to an assault weapons ban if it's anything like the one that used to be in federal law. They're also opposed to "any restriction on a person's right to privately sell firearms to another person," to a ban on high-capacity magazines or bulk purchases of ammunition, and to any mandate for a statewide database for concealed carry permit holders.

It's perfectly respectable, of course, to be against those ideas. Indeed, taking such positions is part of the "open, honest and deliberative dialogue" that the sheriffs also reference in their paper. But why do they seem to assume that their positions have been reached in the light of cool reason but that those who differ from them have succumbed to the emotion of the moment?

Advertisement

Isn't that contention a bit patronizing?

Their advice to wait a year might be more persuasive if the gun-control proposals they mention were novel or new. But of course most of them — and especially those involving assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and private gun sales — are not. They have been debated for years, even decades. And two of them actually were part of federal law at one time.

In short, the possible new laws the sheriffs cite are hardly exotic proposals that have yet to be fully vetted.

If you're looking for ideas that haven't been widely debated in Colorado, it's actually not hard to find them. House Bill 1162, for example, would allow any person who legally possesses a handgun to carry a concealed weapon "subject to the same limitations that apply to a person who holds a permit" — thus greatly expanding the scope of Coloradans who can carry a concealed handgun. Another bill, which was killed last week, would have required businesses to provide security guards if they didn't allow patrons to carry concealed weapons.

The County Sheriffs of Colorado were silent on those proposals, as well as on other bills whose implications are less well understood than the measures they actually cited.

We respect the sheriffs' strongly held stance against restrictive gun legislation. But the idea that now is not a proper time to even consider such bills is simply not credible.

One-day event to run slide down University HillIt's not quite the alternative mode of transportation that Boulder's used to, but, for one day this summer, residents will be able to traverse several city blocks atop inflatable tubes.

"The Harder They Come" (Ecco), by T.C. Boyle T.C. Boyle's new book is about serious subject matters: a tourist from a cruise liner killing a robber at a port of call, a mentally ill young man running around with an assault rifle in the coastal forests of northern California, a radical movement that doesn't recognize the legitimacy of laws or Full Story